MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2620636956

Participatory Critical Incident Technique: A Participatory Action Research Approach for Counselling Psychology/ Technique D'incident Critique Participative : Une Approche De Recherche-Action Participative Pour la Psychologie Du Counseling

2016· article· fr· W2620636956 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Fred Chou, Janelle Kwee, Marla J. Buchanan, Robert Lees

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommunity psychologyParticipatory action researchOppressionPsychologyInjusticeSocial psychologyMental healthSociologyPsychotherapistPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the heart of the definition of counselling psychology, which was formally adopted by the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) in 2009, is social action and responsibility: concern for the growth, well-being, and mental health of individuals, groups, and communities. This view supports the premise that research and practice are mutually informative and strive to adopt culturally appropriate approaches. Embedded in the core values of counselling psychology are awareness of sociocultural factors and of individual and community strengths as central mechanisms of positive change. CPA's definition of counselling psychology supports developing competencies for facilitating change in populations whose well-being is impacted by systemic circumstances. It offers a vision for counsellors and counselling psychologists to be involved in advocacy in order to promote change at various systemic levels, from micro-levels (individual and family) to macro-levels (community and societal).Social justice is not explicitly stated in CPA's definition of counselling psychology; however, its principles of advocacy and emphasis on social and cultural contexts are embedded in the definition. Although there is no unified definition of social justice, its overall aim is to minimize oppression and injustice in favour of equality, accessibility, and optimal developmental opportunities for all members of society (Kennedy & Arthur, 2014, p. 188). Despite social justice being historically part of Canadian counselling psychology and propositions for a social justice orientation to be integrated in training, research, and practice (see Bedi et al., 2011; Palmer & Parish, 2008; Sinacore, 2011), there is a lack of commitment to action for integrating its principles into practice and research (Kennedy & Arthur, 2014). To address these limitations, this article presents a participatory methodology that incorporates the critical incident technique (CIT) into participatory action research (PAR), methods that are both steeped within counselling psychology in Canada (Butterfield, Borgen, Amundson, & Maglio, 2005; Butterfield, Borgen, Maglio, & Amundson, 2009; Kidd & Krai, 20051PARis a collaborative research process between researchers and participants that involves the development of mutual and reciprocal goals, research design decisions, data collection, analytical processes for interpretation, and ways of representing and implementing results that raise critical consciousness and promote positive social change for the participating group or community (Reason, as cited in Kidd & Krai, 2005). has been supported as an intervention that encourages individual and collective agency and systemic change (Ho, 2002). According to Kidd and Krai (2005), the principles of align closely with counselling psychology, as the discipline has a history of working with disadvantaged persons and recognizes contextual factors that impact individuals. The approach is valuable because it ensures that perspectives that have traditionally been marginalized or discredited are integrated into the current academic discourse, while ensuring that the research is beneficial to the community that is being studied (Herr & Anderson, 2005)Both Kidd and Krai (2005) and Vera and Speight (2003) call for the utilization of participatory methodologies in counselling psychology research.Arguments against the utilization of are pragmatic and methodological. As Kidd and Krai (2005) stated, amongst qualitative methods, PAR as a research approach may well prove to be among the most difficult to establish and integrate (p. 192). Moreover, is sometimes conducted uncritically-research collaborators from the population of interest in the study are often limited in their contributions, and it has been criticized for seeming unscientific and lacking rigour and reliability (Fleming, 2011; Smith, Monaghan, & Broad, 2002).In light of these concerns, we provide a critical examination of the use of both as a research approach and as an advocacy-based intervention for vulnerable populations. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.059
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0590.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.661
GPT teacher head0.612
Teacher spread0.049 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Counselling and PsychotherapySame topicCommunity Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207